ATTACHMENT 1
1. NC 54 Pedestrian Crosswalk Street Imprint: During the Public Hearing staff was asked to return with a recommendation that, in addition to upgrading the Hamilton Road/NC 54 pedestrian crosswalk imprint, the applicant also install stamped pedestrian crosswalk street imprint on NC 54, between Rogerson Drive and the main entrance into the proposed development, and at the NC 54/Burning Tree/Finley Golf Course Road intersection.
Comment: We have included a recommendation in Revised Resolution A for pedestrian crosswalk street imprint, on NC 54, between Rogerson Drive and the main entrance to the proposed development, at the Burning Tree, Finley Golf C ourse Road intersection.
2. Signal Timing-Protected Left Turn Lanes on NC 54: A Council member expressed a concern with the traffic signals at NC 54/Finley Golf Course Road and NC 54/Hamilton Road. The Council member stated that at each intersection, the timing for protect left turn signal from NC 54 onto Finley Golf Course Road and onto Hamilton Road should be increased.
Comment: Revised Resolution includes a stipulation to include signal phasing revisions at the NC 54/Hamilton Road and NC54/Burning Tree Drive/Finley Golf Course Road intersections, if determined necessary by the Town Manager and NCDOT.
1. NC 54 Bicycle/Pedestrian Greenway-Alternate Surface Design: A Council member asked the staff to determine if an alternate greenway surface, such as a raised boardwalk, could be constructed around the stand of significant trees in the northeast corner of the site in order to minimize damage to the tree’s root system.
Comment: In response to this concern the applicant provided staff with an alternate greenway alignment plan that locates the proposed NC 54 greenway closer to the highway and further away from the tree stand (Attachment 2). In order to maximize tree protection we recommend flexibility in the final design of the greenway. We recommend that an alternate low impact surface material may be used, in place of asphalt, for the portion of the trail around the grove of trees. We have incorporated this flexibility into Revised Resolution A.
We have also deleted the condition that the greenway permits emergency vehicle access. This condition was originally stipulated for the internal greenway in Meadowmont and was inadvertently included in our initial recommendation.
2. Bicycle Loop Detectors: A Council member asked if the recommended roadway improvements included bicycle loop detectors.
Comment: Staff’s preliminary recommendation, and the attached Revised Resolution A, includes a stipulations that bicycle loop detectors shall be installed on Hamilton Road, Finley Golf Course Road and Burning Tree Drive.
3. Prestwick Road Bicycle Lanes: The issue was raised at the public hearing as to whether it would be possible to include bicycle lanes in the cross-section of Prestwick Road.
Comment: Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation that the applicant construct Prestwick Road within a 39-foot wide cross-section from back of curb to back of curb between Hamilton Road and Finley Golf Course Road, with two 11-foot wide travel lanes. The stipulation also includes 8-foot wide parking spaces, sidewalk and utility strip on both sides of the street. It was determined that because of the limited right-of-way along Prestwick Road, is not feasible to include bicycle lanes into the cross-section design.
4. Finley Golf Course Road Bicycle Lanes: The issue was raised at the public hearing as to whether it would be possible to include bicycle lanes in the cross-section of Prestwick Road.
Comment: Although the Mason Farm Road/Finley Golf Course Road corridor has been identified by the Town for bicycle improvements, bicycle lanes are not proposed for this segment of Finley Golf Course Road. It was determined that because of limited right-of-way dimensions and because this project does not front Finley Golf Course road, it is not feasible nor reasonable to include bicycle lanes into the cross-section design.
5. Pedestrian Access to Aurora Restaurant/East-West/Prestwick Office; A Council member asked if opportunities for pedestrian connectivity, between the proposed development and the adjoining properties to the east, are being proposed by this applicant.
Comment: Although the applicant’s proposed plan does not provide for pedestrian connectivity as described by the Council Member, Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation that if determined reasonable and necessary by the Town Manager, that the applicant shall construct crosswalks and/or sidewalks between the proposed Building 7 and the adjacent properties to the east. Revised Resolution A also includes the stipulation that the applicant submit a recorded copy of a cross access easement for ingress and egress to and through the site from adjacent property to the east.
6. Pedestrian/Vehicular Conflicts at Parking Deck Driveways: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended that the applicant attempt to design the area around the parking deck driveways in a manner that would enhance pedestrian safety. A Council member asked if this recommendation was included in Resolution A.
Comment: Yes. Staff’s preliminary recommendation and the attached Revised Resolution A, includes the following stipulation: That in order to safely accommodate pedestrian movements in the vicinity of the parking deck entrances, the applicant shall incorporate design elements that minimize conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Design elements may include the construction of a continuous sidewalk across the parking deck entrance, or similar hardscape features or details.
7. Transit-Enabling Legislation: A question was raised about transit-enabling legislation and whether it might apply to this project.
Comment: Town staff is currently working on a draft amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance and changes in the policy and procedures for Traffic Impact Analysis as necessary to implement new State enabling legislation that would allow payments to the Town in lieu of transportation infrastructure improvements associated with development and redevelopment projects. The expected timeframe for this Council goal is 6 to 12 months. Staff will also be discussing this topic with the Transportation Board.
8. Water and Sewer Capacity: A Council member asked if staff has made the Orange Water and Sewer Authority aware of recent development applications that include increased land use intensities. The Council member asked if OWASA is planning for this future development.
Comment: OWASA responded to this question during a presentation to the Town Council in 2006. A portion of a report distributed to the Council is copied below:
The Question: Can OWASA continue to meet our community’s water and wastewater service needs if development densities are allowed to increase beyond the levels currently permitted by local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances?
The Short Answer is Yes – To a Degree: We can and will meet the utility needs of increased development density within the defined urban services area of Carrboro and Chapel Hill, but achieving this while still maintaining the level of service desired by OWASA’s customers will require additional and continued collaboration among OWASA, local governments, and the development community.
A copy of the Council memorandum from that presentation is available on the Town’s Web Page at the following link:
http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2006/02/27/8/owasa-future_demand_memo.htm